Orthopraxy

[Anonymous]

Salvete omnes,

We are all, I should think, familiar with the nature of orthodoxy, with its foundation in doctine and dogma. But what is the fundemental nature of "right practice."

Is it simply making sure that the words and actions of a ritual are performed exactly as prescribed, that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, to make the contract binding and not offend the Gods? Or is there a deeper, spiritual basis to orthopraxy?

I have heard the words "reverent formalism" used to describe the Religio. This, to me, seems the essence of orthopraxy: approaching each act and each prayer with purity of mind and body, and with utmost attention and concentration, for the Gods deserve nothing less.

Any thoughts?

Valete,

Ambrosius Celetrus

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve

Orthopraxy is something that involves like you said formulas. Hellenic orthopraxy is about rituals, libations and prayers. Normally a Hellenic pagan should not pray alone, but also perform rituals and libations, make offerings and such. Well most pagans (Hellenic, maybe Roman to) perform purification rites before they start their ritual.
This could easily be done by taking a bath or wash your hands and/or face while doing it in the name of the gods to purify yourself before you will stand before them. I have to look it up, but I think that this is what it is about, purification rituals.
vale

Romulus

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Ambrosi Celetre

Is it simply making sure that the words and actions of a ritual are performed exactly as prescribed, that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, to make the contract binding and not offend the Gods? Or is there a deeper, spiritual basis to orthopraxy?

I have heard the words "reverent formalism" used to describe the Religio. This, to me, seems the essence of orthopraxy: approaching each act and each prayer with purity of mind and body, and with utmost attention and concentration, for the Gods deserve nothing less.

There is indeed no orthodoxy in the Religio Romana as there is no one dogma or doctrine. There is a tradition that acts as a guide for practice, and in that one thing to note is that tradition tends to change over time.

There is a fair amount of "reverent formalism" That is, as you say, in approaching the Gods with due attention and concentration. That is different from the rigid kind of formalism that insists every ritual must be done in an exact manner, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Such a view of the religio is based on a single passage in Pliny where he equated rigid formalism with superstitio. There is only one place for making sure you cross all your t's and dot all your i's. If you make a vow, then when you fulfill your vow you should repeat the original vow since that vow did form a contract. Rather than the form a ritual takes, the important thing is one's approach to the Gods with sincerity.

Romans did have purification rites, as I have written about earlier in my commentary on Cicero's De legibus under the Reiligio Romana string. These mainly entail fulfilling your obligations, especially to the dead, before asking more of the Gods. Again intent is more important than form. No amount of washing removes the stain of not fulfilling your vows or obligations.

Vale optime

[Anonymous]

Salve Horati Piscine,

Actually, I have read all of your posts in this forum. Your knowledge outweighs you choice of residence, Piscinus. I must say though, it is one miserable day here. The lovely Aurora did not greet me this morning. Anyway, I posted this thread because I frquently run into die-hard reconstructionists who insist that all rituals and practices that can be recovered form texts or epigraphically, must be recreated as they were, and the orthopraxic nature of the Religio is the linchpin of their argument.

My poet's heart tells me that, however mechanistic the Religio may have become by the time of Cicero or Pliny, in its beginning "right practice" meant formal reverence. I suppose that I was hoping for validation in posting this thread.

Vale,

Celetrus

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salvete Ambrosi celetre et Piscine

I think that all those die hard recons also realize that some things in pagan recon religions must be created due to lack of source material.
I'm currently reading Jane Harrisson's Prolegomena and in the first chapter she explains why rituals and sacrifices are present. And this is alread said by others that the Gods don't need anything from us, through rituals and sacrifices, we give to them while through praying, we only ask of them. We can research how much we want, but in the end, we must follow our heart and what we feel most comfortable with.
valete

Romulus

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Ambrosi Celetre

Anyway, I posted this thread because I frquently run into die-hard reconstructionists who insist that all rituals and practices that can be recovered form texts or epigraphically, must be recreated as they were, and the orthopraxic nature of the Religio is the linchpin of their argument.

You will certainly get validation from me. How could anyone know "exactly" how any Roman rite was performed? The authors who are our sources wrote under the assumption that their readers would know some aspects of Latin rites with which we today have no knowledge. We can piece together some information to outline Roman rites, but never will we know the details with the kind of exactness reconstructionists insist upon. Therefore to fill in some of the gaps you would necessarily have to add things that are not mentioned in the literature. Of course, I have run across some reconstructionists who insist that nothing unattested in the literature is to be used, but I have most often found that their insistance has been based more in an ignorance of what is provided in the literature. An argument made by Vado against rigid reconstructionists was always that a lack of evidence does not provide a strong argument to discount anything from Roman practice. Or as Dilbert once said, "When did ignorance become a point of view?"

Further, religion is a living thing. It is a way of life, not a set of rites and dogma. To be a religion it must speak to its community and to their needs. Questions on orthopraxi should be addressed to the Gods Themselves, as Numa did when he asked Faunus for guidance, or when Numa consulted with Jupiter. The foundation of the Religio Romana is an ecstatic tradition which cannot be denied nor neglected. Within the tradition there is Roman augury, the practice of incubation rites, and an acknowledgement of divine visions. In the history of the religio, as provided by Livy and others, one feature that remained constant was an openness to changes in the tradition. New rites were introduced through such things as consultation of the Sibylline Oracles and through visions. There is no accord with the tradition in denying that the same is not possible today, or to insist that the Gods would not prefer Their modern worshippers to adopt new rites appropriate to the tradition. To deny that the Gods visit people today in visions or otherwise may influence or communicate with us is to deny the existence of the Gods. Therefore it is right and proper for a modern practitioner of the Religio Romana to call upon the Gods to lend Their guidance by providing signs or visions in such matters of what the Gods hold to be proper practice in Their worship.

Do what you feel or intuit to be proper, trusting that what you feel to be right is lent to you by the Gods, and should you have any doubts, then consult the Gods directly.


Dique Deaeque te semper ament

[Horatius Piscinus]

Oh, yes, Celetre, as W. C. Fields had inscribed on his tombstone, "Better to be here than in Pittsburgh!"

[Anonymous]

Salve Piscine,

Thank you for your reply, though basically it simply confirms that we share the same opinions on the matter. But what do you think of Orcus' statement "the Gods don't need anything from us?" This seems Hellenic to me. I always thought the Religio was a reciprocal affair.

Oh, yes, Celetre, as W. C. Fields had inscribed on his tombstone, "Better to be here than in Pittsburgh!"

I don't know about this, Piscine. Fields had a thing for Philadelphia, e.g.

Hangman: "Have you any last wish? WC: "Yes, I'd like to see Paris before I die." (pause) "Philadelphia will do."

"I once spent a year in Philadelphia, I think it was on a Sunday."

and his proposed epitaph was:

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

I've never heard of any references to my beautiful city. At any rate, who would trust a man who asserted that he liked children "fried." Wait! I know - a Clevelander would. Clearly you are all Carthaginians reincarnate.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Celetre

But what do you think of Orcus' statement "the Gods don't need anything from us?" This seems Hellenic to me. I always thought the Religio was a reciprocal affair.

If you looked through Roman literature you would not find any one view on that matter. Not even with one individual. We get it only second hand, through Augustinus of Hippo, but supposedly Varro had said, "The Gods do not want sacrifices, their statues even less." Then Augustinus also wrote, "Varro feared that many gods would perish, not by hostile action, but by neglect." I think Augustinus misrepresented Varro's views, but still it would come across that Varro would not think the Gods "needed" anything in particular from us so much on the level to which Orcus referred. No God is about to die of thirst because I neglected to offer a libation. The reciprocal relationships we build with the Gods would no more imply a "need" existed with the Gods, only that both parties to a contract were obligated to fulfill their portions. The pimp in one of Plautus' plays implies that the Gods would be harmed in some way, or maybe better to say They would be chastised, if everyone boycotted offering Them sacrifices. Even in that he was saying that humans could serve notice to the Gods that they were obligated to fulfill Their part of a bargain, and not that we could threaten Their existence.

I believe that we, - Gods, humans and all life, are all part of the divinity that permeates the Universe. An individual human is not as powerful as a God but no less has an impact on the whole. We are joined together, all existing in a symbiotic relationship to the Whole. Since the Gods draw on the Whole for Their existence, it would be in Their interest that the Whole remain healthy. In that sense then the Gods do have need of us. You will find in Roman literature a concept of a hierarchy of being in which humans are assigned a stewardship of their own part of the universe. For example I recall, I think in Cicero's De Natura Deorum, some idea that humans have an obligation to care for and preserve animal life just as the Gods tend to us. And since there is this idea that each level in the hierarchy of being has its own roles to fulfill in preserving the Universe, the Gods have need for us to do our own part. The relationship we build with the Gods through rituals and other forms of communication assist in forming a unified effort of preserving and improving the Universe in which we all live, and therefore it is beneficial to both Gods and humankind to maintian our interrelationship. We both "need" it in order to preserve our existence.

Dique Deaeque te bene ament

[Anonymous]

Salvete Omnes

Salustius has some interesting things to say about this in his 'On the Gods and the Cosmos' especially in Parts XV and XVI. There's too much to reproduce here but his main point is that we give the Gods worship in order to maintain our contact with Them and not because They need anything from us.

Of course Sallustius is writing very late indeed, at the very end of the Pagan period and was greatly influenced by the Hellenic tradition which by this point seems to me to have almost depersonalised the Gods to a degree that seems quite incompatible with the Religio of earlier times.

Valete

Brutus

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete Cai Brute et omnes

Yes, there is a link to Sallustius from our webpage http://www.geocities.com/soho/2923/sallustius1.html

Also interesting I think is the view expressed in the Bhagavad Gita and it goes right along with what Sallustius wrote.

Valete optime